• What is faith
    That said, I wouldn't argue that religion is the sole source of abject cruelty on our planet. It's merely one of the major players. — Tom Storm

    Indeed; int might not so often be the reason, but as you point out it is often used as an excuse, for doing things we know we ought not.

    For many, it is uncomfortable to draw attention to that aspect of faith.
  • What is real? How do we know what is real?
    ↪T Clark
    My wording could have been better. There's a logical gap between “I can’t imagine it being otherwise” and “this must be how it is” that's found in transcendental arguments of all sorts.

    It's a transcendental argument becasue it goes: things are thus-and-so; the only way (“I can’t imagine it being otherwise") they can be thus-and-so is if forms are real. Hence, forms are real. The minor premise is the problem - how you can be sure it's the only way?

    But there is also a different criticism here, the the transcendental argument also presumes hylomorphism in the major premise - the "Things are thus and so" just is the presumption that hylomorphism is correct.

    So the "lack of sufficient warrant" just is that presumption.

    (That's probably not very clear - but it's not so much about pragmatism as logical structure...)
  • What is real? How do we know what is real?
    Or when we consider philosophical questions... — Wayfarer
    ...badly... :wink:
  • What is real? How do we know what is real?
    ↪Truth Seeker


    We just engage in certain activities and make distinctions that help us navigate the world. The need for an answer to “What is real?” arises only when we confuse our linguistic habits with the nature of the world.
  • What is real? How do we know what is real?
    ↪Wayfarer


    That’s just taking a way of talking and mistaking it for a structure in things.

    We shouldn’t take the distinctions we make—like form and matter—as marking structures in reality. That’s just grammar projected outward.

    The supposed problem in the OP only arise when we mistake the workings of language for how the world is. We ask what makes a thing what it is, then imagine there must be something—a form—that answers the question. But the need for that answer was created by the way we framed the question.

    Instead of asking what makes a table, a table, we might just recognise that treating things as tables is an activity in which we habitually engage. Use, not meaning.

    We can leave it there, since it'a a point of aporia between us.

    More interesting might be the scientistic answer, that what is real is atoms and molecules and so forth - at the least we can agree that this is in error.
  • What is real? How do we know what is real?
    ↪Wayfarer
    See how those arguments presume hylomorphism? That the right kind of explanation is one that makes essential-formal distinctions.

    But why should we presume that there is such a thing as the form of the table—that what something really is must be explained in terms of its purpose or essence? Isn't that just importing a metaphysical picture shaped by our cognitive preferences, not by necessity?

    As I said earlier, the theory of forms is an application of a mistaken theory of reference. That theory holds that names refer to things, and that therefore, if there is a name, then there must be a thing to which it refers; So there must be a thing to which universals and such refer - the forms. Alternatively, we might understand "triangularity" as a way of grouping some objects; as something we do, and without supposing the existence of a mystic form. Your reply was that "Words can only be general because they denote universals." This repeats the referential theory that is being critiqued, rather than responds to it.

    The simplest way to understand universals is not as the names of etherial forms, but as a way we talk about the things around us.

    And yes, that's an oversimplified version of the theory of forms, there are better ways to understand them; but all rely on reification and none are as clear as the treating them as word use.

    There discussions amongst Aristotelians are irrelevant if Aristotelianism is misguided.
  • What is real? How do we know what is real?
    ↪Janus
    ,
    ↪Tom Storm
    ;

    Let's not deny that it’s natural to be struck by the fact that there is something rather than nothing—or to want an explanation. Instead we should distinguish between the desire for a reason and the legitimacy of any particular answer. Our concern is for when that desire underwrites metaphysical commitments without sufficient warrant—when “I can’t imagine it being otherwise” becomes “this must be how it is.”

    And my suspicion is that this is an approach common to Aristotle, and many of our friends hereabouts, including @Wayfarer.
  • What is real? How do we know what is real?
    ↪Wayfarer
    ,
    ↪J


    What exactly is the phenomenon that metaphysics is addressing? If it’s something like the surprise that there is something rather than nothing, why should we treat that surprise as indicating a real problem? Isn't it just a psychological reaction, not an ontological puzzle? Why assume there’s a “why” here at all?

    Perhaps the very urge to ask “why is there something rather than nothing?” is a kind of metaphysical craving that misunderstands the role of explanation. Explanations work within the world—given that things exist, why does this or that happen?—but they break down when we try to apply them to existence as such. The impulse isn't deep; it’s a confusion of category.
  • What is faith
    But that's one of many ways "faith" might be defined, which is the question of this thread. — Hanover
    That's' one way to approach the OP, but not the only way. One alternative is, instead of merely choosing this or that stipulation, to cast about and see how the word is used.

    The flying bullets is a neat game. But perhaps the issue isn't how many bullets were fired by anger and how may by faith, but in acknowledging that at least some were fired in faith.

    But perhaps you and I agree were others will differ. Do we agree that it is the actions, not the thoughts of the actor, that have the main moral import?

    And especially, that an act is done in good faith is insufficient for it to be counted as a good act, or a being the right thing to do.
  • What is real? How do we know what is real?
    ↪Wayfarer
    If you are saying that it depends on context then you are agreeing with Austin. And if you are not, then you are still trading on the ambiguity.

    Clarifying the contrast isn't a way of dodging the philosophical question, it’s a way of dissolving a pseudo-question. Austin isn’t denying that there are meaningful inquiries about what things are or how we know them—he’s just insisting those questions stop pretending to be about some singular metaphysical “realness.”
  • What is real? How do we know what is real?
    ↪Truth Seeker


    The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real' — Austin

    The problem is in the wording of the question.
  • Reading group: Negative Dialectics by Theodor Adorno
    ↪Jamal
    A reaction: I'm struck by how this rejection of positivity parallels the criticism of faith I have been outlining in that thread.

    There are also some interesting relations to logical pluralism in the rejection of a single totalising framework and sensitivity context.
  • What is faith
    I wouldn't classify faith as a virtue. — Hanover

    Indeed, it's not included in the Aristotelian virtues are typically listed as things courage, temperance, generosity, magnificence, magnanimity, mildness, truthfulness, wit, and friendliness, Indeed, it's not included. The Aristotelian virtues are typically listed as things like courage, temperance, generosity, magnificence, magnanimity, mildness, truthfulness, wit, and friendliness, together with artistry, prudence, intuition, knowledge, and wisdom. with artistry, prudence, intuition, knowledge, and wisdom. The Christian virtues, on the other hand, are typically faith, hope, love, justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude... Faith almost always coming first.

    So the Christians amongst us might demur. At the least you will admit that there are those who count faith as a virtue.

    There are also those who see their faith as a reason to commit what we see as unspeakable acts.

    Those who stood around Elizabeth Struhs, praying as she died, perhaps had faith that their god would not let her die. Some of them perhaps still think that their god allowed her to die in order to further test their faith through the due process of the law and imprisonment. There is an approach to faith that does not only does not allow reconsideration, but actively seeks to reject reassessing one' s beliefs.

    So while you may not wish to count faith as a virtue, others will not agree.

    You mention misdefining god, or perhaps misunderstanding god's will. The obvious problem is the ubiquitous one that it is not entirely obvious to everyone what god's will is, and further there is no possibility of any objectively agreed standard here. While it might suit your narrative to claim terrorists "hijacked... certain terms and ideas for their evil purposes", this is not clear; on the face of it, al-Qaeda is a faith-based organisation. It doesn't, for example, recruit Catholics.

    All this by way of showing that there is an element of special pleading in your suggestion that those who commit abominations in the name of faith are misusing the term.
  • Australian politics
    I think she is honest, empathic and diligent. And very direct. It would be a shame to lose her.
  • Australian politics
    Jaquie Lambie only has a half a quota so far. She might be out.
  • Australian politics
    ↪kazan
    An area I had something to do with a while back... well, twenty years ago. SA and ACT had the progressive ideas and wanted to implement them. NSW and Victoria had already developed their own curriculum and didn't want any changes. NT was too busy just surviving to think about curriculum, QLD and WA would only do anything if the Commonwealth paid for it and Tasmania didn't do edufocationing.

    I think WA is more progressive now.
  • Australian politics
    ...can he tell Australia from Austria?
  • What is faith
    ↪Hanover
    Good. Then we agree at the least that faith is to be restrained, and keep it's place amongst the other virtues.
  • What is faith
    ↪Ludwig V
    A good reply. Yes, faith is more than promising, yes, it involves but goes beyond trust, and yes, it involves adopting a way of life.

    The challenge I set before is to ask about faith's limits, to probe the point at which it becomes wrong to maintain one's faith. I used two examples: the Binding of Isaac and the murder of Elizabeth Rose Struhs. Trussing up your son, placing him on a pile of wood, and holding a knife to his throat is abuse, as is wilfully denying a child her insulin.

    The difference between faith and trust is shown when one's beliefs are challenged. But there is a point at which faith becomes incorrigible.

    ↪Hanover
    , this goes beyond the merely epistemological point, to demand a response from the faithful as to their humanity.

    Faith is not always a good. If your faith is strong enough for you to fly a Boeing into a building, or to fire rockets indiscriminately into a city, then something has gone astray.
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    ↪Quk
    I'm sorry, but I didn't follow that at all.

    Cheers.
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    Here's an example: The whole idea might be of some help to depressive or nihilistic, frustrated people, when they're not seeing any root or basis apriori. This is not an ethical or moral problem. I think it's an epistemological problem. We need to recognize that basis. The fact that it's axiomatic or tautological is actually the point: Sometimes we don't see the forest because of all those trees. — Quk

    If I may, that life is valuable is something with which I will happily agree. But this does not follow from the fact that life grows.
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    Seems from your style that you are not looking for critique but for converts. — Banno
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    Why do you replace "is valued" in the quote with "ought to be valued"? — Quk
    I didn't.

    There's obviously no "ought" in that quote. — Quk
    There is an implicit "ought" in "growth is what is valued" - If growth is valuable, then the subject ought choose to grow were possible.

    ...this tautology is actually the whole point... — Quk
    I what to bring out some of the implications of "Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued". Is that what you consider a tautology? So the idea is that becasue life grows and builds, that growth is therefore of value?

    It doesn't follow.

    Look at these two examples:

    "Because living things tend to grow, growth is what is (in fact) valued (by them)"

    and

    "Because growth is valuable, we (or agents) ought to choose to grow."

    Can you see how these say quite different things? What I have attempted to do was to have James acknowledge and address this.

    The first is factual, the second is evaluative. The first is about what happens, the second is about what ought happen.

    There's more going on here, including the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic value. James may be using “value” in a psychological or evolutionary sense (e.g., "life tends toward growth"), but then concluding something in the normative sense (e.g., "growth is good or ought to be pursued"). That's what I was attempting to clarify.
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    ↪Tom Storm
    I'll drop this here from our conversation of a few weeks back, since this seem to me to be a case in point:

    It seems to me that (redacted) is not accustomed to having folk disagree with him. He doesn't quite know what to do, so he attacks their reputation.

    It' the absence of training in critical thinking, to my mind, that leads to this - the idea I usually express by saying some folk think philosophy consists in making shit up, leaving out the bit where you also look to see what is wrong with the shit you make up.     — Banno
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    Stick with ↪Banno here, I think he is onto something and I beleive he is sincerely trying to get to the nub of this matter. — Tom Storm

    Thanks. That's appreciated. I'm glad that you found some of what I wrote helpful.. It feels like analysis of any sort if way out of fashion on the forums at present, that folk think philosophy consists in making stuff up and that's enough. The leave out the hard part.

    ↪James Dean Conroy
    I wrote a considered response, then saw
    ↪James Dean Conroy
    , and you know, I really couldn't be bothered. Come back when you have an original idea and are looking for substantive replies.
  • Australian politics
    ↪javi2541997
    Cheers. Thanks for taking an interest.
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    ↪James Dean Conroy


    Meh. You are assailing me rather than what I've said, which is what one would expect if my critique was biting and you could not see a reply.

    What you have said is almost identical to an argument from Ayn Rand. There are a number of problems with that argument, as you will see from the article here linked.

    If, as you may be claiming, your argument has no import as to what we should or should not do, then it's hard to see the point.

    But it seems you think there is more going on here.

    I actually had a look at your self-published manuscript, and found this:

    Synthesis offers a universal lens for philosophy, ethics, and culture, reducing all inquiry to one
    question: Does it enhance life’s continuity and vitality? This clarity transcends dogma, aligning
    with life’s evolutionary imperative and offering a testable, adaptive framework for evaluating all
    systems     — Conway

    I take it that the agenda is that what we ought do is "enhance life’s continuity and vitality", and that you think you have proved this on purely factual grounds, completely bypassing ethics.

    ↪Tom Storm
    How are we doing?

    Are you not entertained? Do you have enough popcorn?

    We could go on to apply the Open Question to "Life=Good", a pretty blatant naturalistic fallacy. Do you want to take the lead?

    (Sorry - mucked up the auto-replies.)
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    ↪James Dean Conroy
    Ok, all that.

    DO you think that your theory contributes to discussions of what we should do next? OF what we should value?

    And if so, what.

    I'm off to Bunnings to get some hardware. Cheers.
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    Value arises only because life exists. — James Dean Conroy

    Do you go the step further to saying that this tells us something about what we ought do?
    ↪Banno I've just told you, repeatedly... — James Dean Conroy
    SO just say "yes" or "No", so I can understand: are you making an ethical point?

    The axiom is about where value comes from - it’s about the necessary condition for value, not a conclusion about what we should do. Value arises only because life exists. There’s no hidden moral claim here. — James Dean Conroy
    So do you think that this in some way gives us our ethical values? Not where our values are from, but what they might be?

    Are you attempting to tell us something about what we ought do? yes or no? If you are not, then you are doing biology, and we'll leave it at that. If yes, then you are doing ethics, and there are philosophical issues of consistency that need addressing.

    But our posts are crossing over now, so I'll leave you to it for a bit, and give you the opportunity to to make a substantive account.
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    ↪James Dean Conroy
    As it stands, what you are arguing remains quite unclear.

    So I'll ask again, are you just making a point about biology, or are you attempting to tell us what we ought to do?

    Because doing both is fraught with contradiction.
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    The axiom is ontological: without life, there is no value. No “ought” implied, no hidden ethics. — James Dean Conroy
    Isn't this what I summed up as
    There cannot be values without life; therefore life is valuable. — Banno
    ...and pointed out was invalid?

    That is, granted your first premise, what is it you would have us conclude?
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    Hasn't that been clarified many times already? — James Dean Conroy

    Well, no. You appear to be making an ethical point while maintaining that all you are doing is presenting the facts.

    There's a contradiction there that needs addressing.

    So, are you making an ethical point? Are you giving us an "ought"?

    A quick yes or no, just so we understand were you stand.
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    I never said we ought to value life. I said that value only exists because of life and that if it doesnt value itself it dies. — James Dean Conroy

    SO you are not in any way attempting to make an ethical argument?
  • Australian politics
    Say some more on this. — Tom Storm

    Well, it was just a random thought, but there is now a huge gap in between the socialist ALP and the conservative Libs. Who can fill it? Independents are, by the very fact that they are independent, incohesive. The Greens have a party process, chaotic as it is. There is nothing in the basic environmentalist approach that is against small business, tradies and professionals, but these votes are leaving the Libs for the independents. If the Greens moved towards the centre, they might be able to gain a considerable backing.

    Still watching Insiders in the background. The point was made that the Green vote did not collapse, but that in a three-way contest (Brisbane seats) a drop in the Liberal vote with continuity in the Green vote means the preferences flow on to the ALP. The Green vote has been steady between 10% and 15% since forever.

    Perhaps Pockock will start a new party.
  • How do you define good?
    Men need... — Ludovico Lalli
    But not women?
  • Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
    The distinction you're missing is that the "Good" here is not about moral value, it’s about positive value in a structural sense. — James Dean Conroy
    I understand that, and thought I addressed it. Apparently not clearly enough, so I'll have another go.

    Do you think that you are telling us what we should do?

    That's what I'd understood by your
    2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued. — James Dean Conroy
    "Growth is what is valued". That we ought value life.

    Either you are telling us what we ought to do - value life; or you are saying no more than that life only survives if it survives.

    You can't say that you are only using "is" and yet insist that the message is about what we ought do.

    So it seems to me that either your point is trivial, or it breaks the is/ought divide.
  • Australian politics
    So if the Greens moved to the Right of the ALP, supporting small business and tradies... :chin:
  • Australian politics
    There's plenty of room for a more sophisticated, dare we say, centrist Liberal party in the future — Tom Storm

    Yes.

    But the Liberal pack has been decimated, the dearth of talent only increased. They may not be capable of such a big re-think.

    In the ACT - which I happily admit is far from typical of the rest of Australia - the Liberals have not been in power for more than twenty years and now have no Senate representation. But instead of moving to a progressive liberal addenda the party here appears to be sticking to the unelectable ideological right. mad, but what has been described as preferring to support an ideology over being elected.

    The Liberals are perhaps too wedded to a conservative agenda to adjust their place.
  • Australian politics
    "Australians are not who Peter Dutton thought we were" (Samantha Maiden). Watching Insiders.

    Was the election a step to the left or a step away from the right?

    ↪javi2541997

    The ALP have the backing to set a bold agenda, but will probably keep to the unexciting policies that they have set out. Steady as she goes.

    Which is a lost opportunity, from my point of view. But it is what it is.
  • Australian politics
    ↪Tom Storm
    Yes, the Green vote is as usual, interesting. The Senate results might mitigate the ALP landslide, but it doesn't look good.

    Here's the provisional Quota distribution: https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/SenateStateProvisionalQuota-31496.htm . At this stage it looks like the landslide continued there as well. 12 definite quotas for ALP, and perhaps six for the libs/nats/country.

    Four for the Greens.

    I think that gives the ALP an outright majority in the Senate.

    David Pocock seems to be the only Independent, Jacqui Lambie only has half a quota.

    Of course., preferences will swing this around considerably.

    So it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Home » Banno